Advanced time-based automatic saving with version management

[Giggoretta]

1. Automatic Save Interval Setting: Users can set the application to automatically save their work at regular intervals, such as every 5 minutes.

2. Version Management:

   • Short-Term Versions: The application will keep the most recent 10 versions saved at the short-term interval (e.g., every 5 minutes).
   • Long-Term Versions: In addition to short-term versions, the application will also save at a longer interval, such as every hour. From these hourly saves, the application will maintain a separate set of up to 10 versions. This ensures that users have access to not just the most recent changes, but also to versions from earlier in their workflow.

3. Save Location Selection: Users should be able to choose where these versions are saved, such as on a local folder, network drive, or cloud storage.

4. User Customization: Users should have the flexibility to adjust the number of versions saved both in the short-term and long-term intervals, depending on their specific needs and storage capacity.

This feature is designed to provide comprehensive version control, allowing users to revert to earlier stages of their work easily while also protecting against data loss due to unforeseen issues or errors in recent edits.

[Giggoretta]

Additional Consideration: Limitations of Creative Cloud for AutoSave Feature

While Creative Cloud offers numerous benefits, there are scenarios where it may not be the ideal solution for the AutoSave feature. These scenarios include:

1. Offline Work: Users working without an active internet connection would be unable to utilize cloud-based auto-saving, making a local save option essential.

2. Slow or Limited Internet: In areas with slow or limited internet connectivity, uploading multiple versions to the cloud could be impractical and time-consuming.

3. Traveling Users: For users who frequently travel, reliable internet access might not always be available, necessitating the need for robust offline saving capabilities.

4. Large File Handling: Working with large files, such as high-resolution images or complex graphics, may require faster storage solutions like PCIe SSDs for efficient saving and versioning. Uploading these large files frequently to the cloud could be inefficient and resource-intensive.

5. Storage Concerns: Users might be cautious about uploading numerous versions to the cloud due to storage limits or data privacy concerns. Local saving options provide an alternative for managing large numbers of file versions.

In light of these considerations, it's crucial for the AutoSave feature to offer flexible saving options, accommodating both local and cloud storage, and allowing users to customize their saving preferences based on their specific needs and circumstances.

[rnd340804203i1s]

+1

[D Fosse]

Cloud storage already has versioning.

What bothers me about any automatic saving is this simple question: save where? This is a recipe for an unholy mess. I certainly don't want anything automatically saved back to the same location - that's most likely not where I intend it to be. Maybe a separate folder on your desktop, where you can see it. Temp directory wouldn't work here - it would fill up people's drives faster than you can say "scratch disk error".

An alternative would be to not initiate until you had already saved it once - but then you're already going with incremental saving and all you need is ctrl+S.

[Giggoretta]

"Cloud storage already has versioning."
We know. It seems you haven't read the post thoroughly. I think the least you could do is read it before responding or commenting. I specifically mentioned this, knowing that it would be the starting point for many, which obviously isn't the solution but rather an alternative that only works for a few. But I'll write it again, what I've already mentioned once:

Additional Consideration: Limitations of Creative Cloud for AutoSave Feature

While Creative Cloud offers numerous benefits, there are scenarios where it may not be the ideal solution for the AutoSave feature. These scenarios include:

1. Offline Work: Users working without an active internet connection would be unable to utilize cloud-based auto-saving, making a local save option essential.

2. Slow or Limited Internet: In areas with slow or limited internet connectivity, uploading multiple versions to the cloud could be impractical and time-consuming.

3. Traveling Users: For users who frequently travel, reliable internet access might not always be available, necessitating the need for robust offline saving capabilities.

4. Large File Handling: Working with large files, such as high-resolution images or complex graphics, may require faster storage solutions like PCIe SSDs for efficient saving and versioning. Uploading these large files frequently to the cloud could be inefficient and resource-intensive.

5. Storage Concerns: Users might be cautious about uploading numerous versions to the cloud due to storage limits or data privacy concerns. Local saving options provide an alternative for managing large numbers of file versions.

In light of these considerations, it's crucial for the AutoSave feature to offer flexible saving options, accommodating both local and cloud storage, and allowing users to customize their saving preferences based on their specific needs and circumstances.

[Giggoretta]

1. Modern System Management: Most contemporary operating systems and applications can manage automatic saves without causing chaos. These systems typically save in a well-defined, segregated location, easily manageable by the user.

2. User-Friendly Solutions: Most software offers customization options for auto-save locations, thus avoiding any mess. Users can specify a separate folder for this purpose.

3. Temporary File Handling: Concerns about using the 'Temp' directory for saving and filling up the drive are often unfounded, as modern systems regularly clear out temporary files to avoid unnecessary drive usage.

4. Alternatives to Incremental Saving: The suggested alternative, initiating auto-save only after a manual save, isn't always practical. It can hinder workflows that require frequent and automated saving.

Moreover, many software solutions allow setting parameters like:

• Deleting the oldest file once a certain number of files or a specific GB limit is reached.
• Specifying the location for automatic saves, where everything is organized chronologically, with an option for each project to be saved in a separate folder named after the file.

These 'problems' are negligible compared to the loss of not being able to access a crucial stage of an important project. Currently, Photoshop, for instance, unhelpfully deletes backup versions without asking the user, which is not user-friendly. Try Cockos'sDAW, Reaper, works perfect, without any disc issue. Users should have the freedom to decide what they want to keep, especially when they are paying diligently.

[davescm]

@Giggoretta It would appear that you misread D Fosse's reply. His discussion points were about local saves, it was you that suggested cloud storage under item 3 of your first post.

5 minute incremental saves with large files would quickly fill up disk space. They would also result in system slow downs whilst saving.  The idea is not inherently bad  but needs some thought.

I would like to see the option to incrementally save filename001, filename002 etc using Ctrl+S.

Dave

[Giggoreta]

"5 minute incremental saves with large files would quickly fill up disk space."
😄 😄 😄

Then you've misunderstood; fortunately, the disk never fills up with the method I wrote about. It's worth reconsidering what I've written, then you won't describe a mathematically non-existent problem.

So, you're saying that if there's a save every five minutes, the disk will fill up. It doesn't matter how often the save occurs, whether it's every 5 or 10 instances. Especially if, out of those 10, 5 are older versions, and it always deletes the oldest one. For a 100MB project, that's 1GB. Nowadays, you can get a 1000GB SSD at a good price, or a 4000GB one, SATA3 or PCIe. You don't need an 8TB RAID PCIe SSD for saving.

Even if a project is 1GB, that's only 10GB, which is 0.5% of a 2TB disk. And once the project is finished, you can delete the older versions.

[davescm]

I have three docs open at present - they are 8GB, 15GB and 12 GB on disk respectively. That would be 10 x 35GB = 350GB. All my saves are uncompressed and to SSDs - they have to be as compressed saves at that size are slow.

Don't assume everyone works with small file sizes. I am well aware of large SSD drives - I have several installed and have plenty of space here. I am also well aware, from supporting this forum daily, of those who work on laptops with restricted disks (you mentioned travelling users above) and who already run into space issues for scratch disks.

As I said above, I am not against the idea but implementation would need to be well thought out.

Dave

[Stephen Marsh]

I appreciate that this topic is an "idea" (feature request).

Photoshop has built-in auto recovery saving (if the file has been manually saved at least once).

For those that require such features now, there are scripts available to remind to save a set intervals, or save at set intervals. There are also scripts to save versioned copies.

[Giggoretta]

"Photoshop has built-in auto recovery saving"
But it is autodeleted! and zero setting for this. I will keep allversion SOMETIMES.

"I have three docs open at present - they are 8GB, 15GB and 12 GB on disk respectively. "
In this case you need RAID PCIe SSD. OR you need set larger time-intervals, and less versions. 
Problem solved. 😉


The script is good idea IF it is not autodeleted. But I will not use script

[Giggoretta]

But I will not use script for basic stuffys, like autosave.

[Stephen Marsh]

But I will not use script for basic stuffys, like autosave.

By Giggoretta

I understand, then you must wait to see if Adobe ever implements such a feature.  :]

[Giggoretta]

I didn't ask for it to be a mandatory setting to keep multiple versions, but for it to be an option. I should be able to decide whether to keep the backup versions, how many, and how often they are saved. It's not user-friendly if an app forces a particular option on its users. I have the right to decide whether I want the deletion or not.

For example, the last time Photoshop 2024 crashed, my most important file was not recovered. There was simply no way to retrieve it, even after trying with support. Later, I searched the folder where Photoshop 2024 saves these files, and it was empty.

I want to decide for myself to keep these.

I wrote, again, not that everyone should do the same, but the opposite. Everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether they want automatic deletion, when to delete, and how many to delete.

I hope it's now clear that this doesn't mean the feature is forced on those with slower and smaller SSDs for their projects. Everyone should be able to set it up sophisticatedly.

This idea is not an in quotes request, because for many, this is an important feature. The internet is full of desperate users who cannot recover their files due to Photoshop's limitations and are trying all sorts of data recovery programs. If you don't need this setting option because it's set up just the way you like, that's fine, but it doesn't mean that everyone's hardware/workflow will be like yours. It's not universal.

[Péter34080395vszt]

+9999